FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Keith Turgeon,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 1998-147
Committee of the Whole, City Council, City of Groton; City Council, City of Groton; and City of Groton
Respondents September 9, 1998
	The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 22, 1998 at 
which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and 
presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
	After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and 
conclusions of law are reached:
	1.  The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(1), G.S.
	2.  By letter of complaint dated May 15, 1998 and filed on May 19, 1998, the 
complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the 
Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by discussing him in executive session and 
excluding him from such executive session discussion.
	3.  It is found that the complainant is a police officer with the city of Groton 
(“city”) police department.
	4.  It is found that by letter dated April 22, 1998, counsel for the city notified the 
complainant that the complainant’s promotion would be discussed by the respondents at a 
meeting to be held on April 27, 1998.  The April 22, 1998 letter further indicated, in 
relevant part:
I wish to iterate to you that personnel matters may be 
brought before the council in executive session.  However, 
you, as the individual whose personnel and promotion 
would be discussed, would have the right to have this 
matter heard in open session….
Please if you could, advise either myself or the Mayor’s 
office of your desire either to have this heard in executive 
session or in a public forum.  If the matter is heard in 
executive session, the council does have the right to have 
no one other than the council present or to allow you, the 
Chief or myself to be present.
	5.  It is found that the complainant received the April 22, 1998 letter and 
responded to counsel for the respondents by letter dated April 27, 1998.  In his April 27, 
1998 response, the complainant requested that his promotion be discussed in executive 
session, and indicated “I would prefer to be present during the executive session to 
observe the proceedings.”
	6.  It is found that on April 27, 1998, the respondent committee met and discussed 
the complainant’s promotion in executive session however, the respondent committee did 
not invite the complainant to attend the executive session.
	7.  Section 1-18a(6)(A), G.S., provides that:
"Executive sessions" means a meeting of a public agency at 
which the public is excluded for one or more of the 
following purposes:  (A)  Discussion concerning the 
appointment, employment, performance, evaluation, health 
or dismissal of a public officer or employee, provided that 
such individual may require that discussion be held at an 
open meeting.
	8.  It is found that the respondent committee provided the complainant with 
adequate notice of the April 27, 1998 discussion about his promotion.
	9.  It is also found that the complainant exercised his right to have the promotion 
discussion in executive session rather than requiring that such discussion be held at an 
open meeting, within the meaning of 1-18a(6)(A).
	10.  It is concluded that nothing in 1-18a(6)(A), G.S., required that the 
respondent committee permit the complainant to attend the April 27, 1998 executive 
session at which the complainant was discussed.
	11.  Further, 1-21g(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:
At an executive session of a public agency, attendance shall 
be limited to members of said body and persons invited by 
said body to present testimony or opinion pertinent to 
matters before said body …..
	12.  It is therefore, concluded that the respondent committee did not violate 1-
18a(6)(A), and 1-21g(a), G.S., when it discussed the complainant’s promotion in the 
April 27, 1998 executive session and did not invite the complainant to attend such 
executive session.
	The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of 
the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
	1.  The complaint is hereby dismissed.
	Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of 
September 9, 1998.


_________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S., THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF 
EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO 
THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR 
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:
Keith Turgeon
c/o Atty. Leslie Scoville
CILU/CIPU
36B Kreiger Lane - POB 938
Glastonbury, CT 06033
Committee of the Whole,
City Council, City of Groton;
City Council, City of Groton;
and City of Groton
c/o Atty. Peter S. Gianacoplos
100 Fort Hill Rd. - POB 942
Groton, CT. 06340-0942


__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission




FIC1998-147FD/mrb09161998